Am I the only one that doesn’t like the Fujicron Trinity 23,35,50 f2 Lenses?

Sufstreet wrote:

Miguel-C wrote:

jjz2 wrote:

Miguel-C wrote:

Sufstreet wrote:

Miguel-C wrote:

Sufstreet wrote:

Yes off course. The 1.4 is smoother and fades nicer.

This has been demonstrated to be false. If you pick the 35mm f2 and the 35mm f1.4 at f2 the bokeh roll off will be identical.

Neither are super smooth in busy backgrounds.

I tried them both and I don't agree.

Theres plenty of side by side comparisons on YouTube, are they all wrong?

Not sure how this would be, but maybe so... but the MTF curves are quite different, different central sharpness to out-of-focus edges on a tighter portrait. The 35 f2 if I recall, has a more even sharpness across the frame, whereas the 35 1.4 has more microcontrast in the center then dives into smoother, not so sharp edges, esp at the first few stops.

I had the 35 f2, the 35 1.4, and the 35 1.2 7 artisans all at the same time. I'm not a pixel peeper or know how to do scientific tests, but to me, they all had a diff "look" to them. I am kind of picky about color/bokeh though. Sure, it's subtle, as they are all the same focal length after all, but it was there.

I do agree neither have "Great" bokeh, but pretty good... The 56 1.2 is better than both, IMO.

My comment was simply in relation to the bokeh and background rendering. I understand the F2 lens is a bit more contrasty.

DoF differences aside, same rendering, same bokeh balls, same shapes, same everything.

Sufstreet wrote:

There's millions of videos on YouTube explaining things. It does not mean they are right.

You can't really refute image comparisons. What makes these comments worse is that perpetuates this myth that the 35mm F1.4 is a superlative lens, and whenever someone tries to describe why they use words such as "magic" "character" "feelings". I'm quite the one for scientific results, so abstract notions are meaningless to me.

That's just one photo! Lenses render different in different light, angles and depending on how far away the subject is etc... I've taken thousands of photos with the 35s and the difference is there no matter if you like it or not.

Rendering is rendering, I never had a lens change its rendering based on conditions. Rendering is optics based, not conditions based. This image is taken with the same lighting, same distance to subject and same color profile. If there was a difference in rendering it would show.

And if your lenses change rendering based on light conditions then i would say you have a faulty lens. Bokeh balls, light roll off should be consistent otherwise it would be difficult to determine which lens to bring to a job. If a lens struggles with flare, it will always struggle. If a lens has onion shaped bokeh balls, they will always be there. It doesn't change if its a cloudy day, haha.

I believe in magic, soul and feelings. The 35mm1.4 had given me all that. Long before I read reviews. And I've shot nice Leica lenses, Nikon, Canon, Sony etc. The XF35MMF1.4 is still my favourite lens of all time. On paper it looses to most fancy 35mm/50mm lenses.

That's fine, but not really relevant to the conversation. We are comparing apples to apples, and these apples look the same.

But I believe whats ends up on a print when you can't zoom in and just enjoy the photographs, that's where the XF35mmF1.4 shines.

If you printed that image above, both out of focus areas would look the same, and that's the point. Your statements are very broad that say more about your attachment and enjoyment with a lens more than its actual quality.

And i hope you don't misunderstand my tone, its great that you prefer the f1.4, many here do. But i hope members of this forum also understand the difference between abstract statements and verifiable comparisons. Otherwise we may be talking with Flat earthers.